What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Liberal Contempt for the Constitution

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
106,850
Reaction score
41,529
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Most liberals have accepted some ‘modern’ or populist view of the correct direction of society, without addressing either the provenance, or the prognosis if this path is followed.

1. Where do our laws begin? The answer is not open to conjecture: it is written in the Constitution itself.

“THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
“THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Article VI.

2. Cal Thomas wrote in the March 8, 2000, Washington Times, “In the final Democratic debate before the Super Tuesday election, Vice President Al Gore responded to a question about the type of Supreme Court justices he as president would select: ‘I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly EVOLVING EXPERIENCE of the American people.’ …
“Mr. Gore’s view of the Constitution, shared by most political liberals, IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PHILOSOPHIES OF OUR TIME. It establishes a class of philosopher-kings who determine the rights of the people and shreds the CONSTITUTION AS A DOCUMENT THAT CONFORMS PEOPLE TO UNCHANGING PRINCIPLES that promote their own and the general welfare.

3. Liberal scholars today don’t believe the Constitution was “ROOTED IN OBJECTIVE AND UNCHANGING TRUTH”—that is, they don’t believe our founders established the rule of law. But that’s just what the founders did. And now most lawyers and judges reject their foundational work. “A well-known Harvard law professor,” Robert Bork wrote, “turned to me with some exasperation and said, ‘Your notion that the Constitution is in some sense law must rest upon an obscure philosophic principle with which I am unfamiliar.’”

4. Law schools routinely teach about being “legal realists.” Like former Vice President Al Gore, they want an “evolving Constitution.” But this reasoning gives the judges despotic powers. It also takes us away from the foundational law established by our forefathers. RADICAL LIBERAL CULTURE OFTEN HAS CONTEMPT OF HISTORY AND OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. Its followers foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law.
The War Against the U.S. Constitution | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

5. Speaking directly to this point, the Tea Party folks have created a ‘Contract For America,’ the first item of which is the following, agreed to by over 82%:
"(1) Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03 percent). Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract From America' - ABC News
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
Most liberals have accepted some ‘modern’ or populist view of the correct direction of society, without addressing either the provenance, or the prognosis if this path is followed.

1. Where do our laws begin? The answer is not open to conjecture: it is written in the Constitution itself.

“THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
“THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Article VI.

2. Cal Thomas wrote in the March 8, 2000, Washington Times, “In the final Democratic debate before the Super Tuesday election, Vice President Al Gore responded to a question about the type of Supreme Court justices he as president would select: ‘I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly EVOLVING EXPERIENCE of the American people.’ …
“Mr. Gore’s view of the Constitution, shared by most political liberals, IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PHILOSOPHIES OF OUR TIME. It establishes a class of philosopher-kings who determine the rights of the people and shreds the CONSTITUTION AS A DOCUMENT THAT CONFORMS PEOPLE TO UNCHANGING PRINCIPLES that promote their own and the general welfare.

3. Liberal scholars today don’t believe the Constitution was “ROOTED IN OBJECTIVE AND UNCHANGING TRUTH”—that is, they don’t believe our founders established the rule of law. But that’s just what the founders did. And now most lawyers and judges reject their foundational work. “A well-known Harvard law professor,” Robert Bork wrote, “turned to me with some exasperation and said, ‘Your notion that the Constitution is in some sense law must rest upon an obscure philosophic principle with which I am unfamiliar.’”

4. Law schools routinely teach about being “legal realists.” Like former Vice President Al Gore, they want an “evolving Constitution.” But this reasoning gives the judges despotic powers. It also takes us away from the foundational law established by our forefathers. RADICAL LIBERAL CULTURE OFTEN HAS CONTEMPT OF HISTORY AND OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. Its followers foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law.
The War Against the U.S. Constitution | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

5. Speaking directly to this point, the Tea Party folks have created a ‘Contract For America,’ the first item of which is the following, agreed to by over 82%:
"(1) Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03 percent). Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract From America' - ABC News


They can not like the consitituiton all they want. Fortunately for them one thing the founders, in their forsight, included were driections on how to change it if so desired.

The Constitution is the back stop against tyranny. If it is 'evolving' or just a 'guideline' then there is nothing to stop tyranny.
 
Last edited:

antagon

The Man
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
3,572
Reaction score
295
Points
48
..but the constitution has evolved. the founders and subsequent lawmakers have amended it 27 times.

i wonder if the neocon con-tract xx america has evolved. the first such document was full of hot-air conservatism.
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
..but the constitution has evolved. the founders and subsequent lawmakers have amended it 27 times.

i wonder if the neocon con-tract xx america has evolved. the first such document was full of hot-air conservatism.

Evolving what is actually in the document and evolving for convenience sake how we interpret it are two different things.
 

antagon

The Man
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
3,572
Reaction score
295
Points
48
the livin breathin concept is a reference to amendment power, then. that is for certain. i challenge that the scotus really reinterprets the constitution. i think that it considers new circumstances and lays a new disposition. the starkness that consitutional law is written is adapted to this purpose. other law, like statutes and taxes, even from the founders' era is written with more absolute effect.
 

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
16,829
Reaction score
2,492
Points
245
WOW PC, you will cite any wacko or nut to continue your assault on liberals and progressives.

Gerald Ray Flurry (born 1935) is the founder and Pastor General of the Philadelphia Church of God (PCG), a small church based in Edmond, Oklahoma. He is presenter of the television program The Key of David, is editor in chief of The Philadelphia Trumpet magazine, is founder and chancellor of Herbert W. Armstrong College in Edmond, Oklahoma, and is founder and chairman of the Armstrong International Cultural Foundation. It is taught within the church that he is That Prophet, a divinely appointed successor to Herbert W. Armstrong, akin to Elisha after Elijah. He is a supporter of teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong (founder of the Worldwide Church of God).

Disfellowshipment teaching

Flurry has been criticized by detractors for the church's teaching of disfellowshipment. The church, citing Romans 16:17, teaches PCG members to avoid associating with or fellowshipping with present and former baptized members of the Worldwide Church of God, prohibiting "any kind of fellowship with former PCG members and all "Laodiceans," even if they are members of a church member's immediate family."

CD Policy

Since at least 2005 it has been PCG policy that all sermons sent out on CD are immediately destroyed after being heard in local areas. No one is to listen to the message again and the CD is destroyed with a witness present. In spite of this air-tight ruling, several sermons are available on the internet.

Social networking sites

Another PCG requirement is for all Armstrong College students to remove themselves from all social networking sites, especially Facebook and My Space. The sermon was given on April 11, 2009 at Edmond, Oklahoma PCG Headquarters by Andrew Locher. Because of the apparent 'worldliness' of these sites and because some of the students had "ex-members", "disfellowshipped" or "marked" persons in their 'friends' lists all were made to erase their accounts. The announcement also encouraged all parents to have every member child removed from all social networking sites in outlying church areas.

According to Mr. Locher, social networking sites "...[have] all the hallmarks of Satan's subtle, deceptive traits all over it".

PCG also has strong apocalyptic teachings inherited from WCG. It teaches that a Great Tribulation will soon occur in which a united European power will emerge, composed of ten nations or groups of nations, which will conquer the modern descendants of Israel (the USA, Britain and Israel) and take them into slavery. An alliance of eastern powers (including Russia and China) will gather up its forces and wage war upon the European power. Then Jesus Christ will return and liberate the Israelites and usher in a thousand years of worldwide peace, which is called the 'world tomorrow'.
wiki
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Excerpt of a Harry Shearer interview with Al Gore about his book The Assault on Reason.

Former Vice President Al Gore:[/B] In the old world before the United States of America, it was common for people to be given the reinforced impression that the monarch ruling them was ruling because of a divine right; that God had ordained the legitimacy of that monarch’s leadership and therefore apposing it was akin to opposing the will of God. That’s the divine right of kings.

The key conceptual breakthrough that came from the enlightenment and was the foundation of the United States of America, is that the legitimacy of any power exercised in governess can only come from the consent of those being governed. It is wrong however to reach the conclusions as some have that the secularity of the American design did not involve a role for God. Although there was disagreement and debate; our founding documents include this simile phrase: We believe that all men (people) are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are…

When you look very carefully at that, here’s what I get from this: the divine right of kings was replaced by the dignity of individuals and rights of individuals that come as a result of their creation by God or whatever word you want to use. If anyone says that God has ordained this government policy or that government policy; that is heresy. That is wrong, it is UN American.

And if anyone says that it is OK to strip away the rights that Americans are guaranteed in our Constitution to abuse and to torture individuals, that is also UN American.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself."
Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to make it keep pace with the advance of the age in science and experience. Instead of this, the European governments have resisted reformation until the people, seeing no other resource, undertake it themselves by force, their only weapon, and work it out through blood, desolation and long-continued anarchy."
Thomas Jefferson to Robert J. Garnett, 1824. ME 16:15

"[The European] monarchs instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself and of ordering its own affairs. Let us... avail ourselves of our reason and experience to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils." Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
106,850
Reaction score
41,529
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
the livin breathin concept is a reference to amendment power, then. that is for certain. i challenge that the scotus really reinterprets the constitution. i think that it considers new circumstances and lays a new disposition. the starkness that consitutional law is written is adapted to this purpose. other law, like statutes and taxes, even from the founders' era is written with more absolute effect.

Perhaps it's merely late on a friday, but this post seems to make no sense to me.

1. The "the livin breathin concept" has nothing to do with "amendment power." It is the total opposite. The reason for the creation of the idea of an evolving Constitution is that progressives wanted to change the founding document in ways that citizens could not be convinced to vote for.

2. Article V of the US Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.

3. Progressivism was the first American political movement based primarily on the criticism and deconstruction of the Constitution. The Constitution provided the framework for limited government. The checks and balances, strictly interpreted, prevent such ideas as redistribution for ‘social justice,’ thus, the "living Constitution."
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
106,850
Reaction score
41,529
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
WOW PC, you will cite any wacko or nut to continue your assault on liberals and progressives.

Gerald Ray Flurry (born 1935) is the founder and Pastor General of the Philadelphia Church of God (PCG), a small church based in Edmond, Oklahoma. He is presenter of the television program The Key of David, is editor in chief of The Philadelphia Trumpet magazine, is founder and chancellor of Herbert W. Armstrong College in Edmond, Oklahoma, and is founder and chairman of the Armstrong International Cultural Foundation. It is taught within the church that he is That Prophet, a divinely appointed successor to Herbert W. Armstrong, akin to Elisha after Elijah. He is a supporter of teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong (founder of the Worldwide Church of God).

Disfellowshipment teaching

Flurry has been criticized by detractors for the church's teaching of disfellowshipment. The church, citing Romans 16:17, teaches PCG members to avoid associating with or fellowshipping with present and former baptized members of the Worldwide Church of God, prohibiting "any kind of fellowship with former PCG members and all "Laodiceans," even if they are members of a church member's immediate family."

CD Policy

Since at least 2005 it has been PCG policy that all sermons sent out on CD are immediately destroyed after being heard in local areas. No one is to listen to the message again and the CD is destroyed with a witness present. In spite of this air-tight ruling, several sermons are available on the internet.

Social networking sites

Another PCG requirement is for all Armstrong College students to remove themselves from all social networking sites, especially Facebook and My Space. The sermon was given on April 11, 2009 at Edmond, Oklahoma PCG Headquarters by Andrew Locher. Because of the apparent 'worldliness' of these sites and because some of the students had "ex-members", "disfellowshipped" or "marked" persons in their 'friends' lists all were made to erase their accounts. The announcement also encouraged all parents to have every member child removed from all social networking sites in outlying church areas.

According to Mr. Locher, social networking sites "...[have] all the hallmarks of Satan's subtle, deceptive traits all over it".

PCG also has strong apocalyptic teachings inherited from WCG. It teaches that a Great Tribulation will soon occur in which a united European power will emerge, composed of ten nations or groups of nations, which will conquer the modern descendants of Israel (the USA, Britain and Israel) and take them into slavery. An alliance of eastern powers (including Russia and China) will gather up its forces and wage war upon the European power. Then Jesus Christ will return and liberate the Israelites and usher in a thousand years of worldwide peace, which is called the 'world tomorrow'.
wiki
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Excerpt of a Harry Shearer interview with Al Gore about his book The Assault on Reason.

Former Vice President Al Gore:[/B] In the old world before the United States of America, it was common for people to be given the reinforced impression that the monarch ruling them was ruling because of a divine right; that God had ordained the legitimacy of that monarch’s leadership and therefore apposing it was akin to opposing the will of God. That’s the divine right of kings.

The key conceptual breakthrough that came from the enlightenment and was the foundation of the United States of America, is that the legitimacy of any power exercised in governess can only come from the consent of those being governed. It is wrong however to reach the conclusions as some have that the secularity of the American design did not involve a role for God. Although there was disagreement and debate; our founding documents include this simile phrase: We believe that all men (people) are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are…

When you look very carefully at that, here’s what I get from this: the divine right of kings was replaced by the dignity of individuals and rights of individuals that come as a result of their creation by God or whatever word you want to use. If anyone says that God has ordained this government policy or that government policy; that is heresy. That is wrong, it is UN American.

And if anyone says that it is OK to strip away the rights that Americans are guaranteed in our Constitution to abuse and to torture individuals, that is also UN American.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself."
Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to make it keep pace with the advance of the age in science and experience. Instead of this, the European governments have resisted reformation until the people, seeing no other resource, undertake it themselves by force, their only weapon, and work it out through blood, desolation and long-continued anarchy."
Thomas Jefferson to Robert J. Garnett, 1824. ME 16:15

"[The European] monarchs instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself and of ordering its own affairs. Let us... avail ourselves of our reason and experience to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils." Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

Hi Friendless, glad to see you're keeping busy. (Hey, there may be some openings at the SEC.)

There were five (5) specific items listed in the OP. I list them that way so that a) they are easier to read, and b) to make it easier to identify your objections.

Your oblique criticism, as in 'the messenger, not the message,' must mean that you could find not the tiniest point with which to argue.

So I score a one hundred on a) the view that progressives have of the Constitution, b) the correct manner in which the Constitution was meant to be altered, and c) you kinda like the Tea Party folks' view of constitutionality.

So, changing your party affiliation?
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,326
Reaction score
1,705
Points
205
There certainly is liberal contempt for the Constitution, but let us not forget the conservative contempt for the Constitution as well.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
106,850
Reaction score
41,529
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
..but the constitution has evolved. the founders and subsequent lawmakers have amended it 27 times.

i wonder if the neocon con-tract xx america has evolved. the first such document was full of hot-air conservatism.

The thrust of the OP has nothing to do with amendments, or the amendment process.

It refers to the attempt, largely successful, unfortunately, to obviate the founding documents.

1. The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution are founded on the idea that people are born with inalienable rights, given by one’s Creator, not by a legislative body or government that can decide which ones you have, and can remove them.

a. Not according to Progressives. Woodrow Wilson, of the Declaration of Independence, from “What is Progress?”
“Some citizens of this country never got beyond the Declaration of Independence, signed in Philadelphia, July 4th, 1776….The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day. It is of no consequence to us unless we can translate its general terms into examples of the present day and substitute them in some vital way for the examples it itself gives…”

b. Wilson: “ the Constitution could be stripped off and thrown aside…”( Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law Project MUSE Journals Journal of Policy History Volume 20, Number 1, 2008 Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law
 

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
16,829
Reaction score
2,492
Points
245
WOW PC, you will cite any wacko or nut to continue your assault on liberals and progressives.

Gerald Ray Flurry (born 1935) is the founder and Pastor General of the Philadelphia Church of God (PCG), a small church based in Edmond, Oklahoma. He is presenter of the television program The Key of David, is editor in chief of The Philadelphia Trumpet magazine, is founder and chancellor of Herbert W. Armstrong College in Edmond, Oklahoma, and is founder and chairman of the Armstrong International Cultural Foundation. It is taught within the church that he is That Prophet, a divinely appointed successor to Herbert W. Armstrong, akin to Elisha after Elijah. He is a supporter of teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong (founder of the Worldwide Church of God).

Disfellowshipment teaching

Flurry has been criticized by detractors for the church's teaching of disfellowshipment. The church, citing Romans 16:17, teaches PCG members to avoid associating with or fellowshipping with present and former baptized members of the Worldwide Church of God, prohibiting "any kind of fellowship with former PCG members and all "Laodiceans," even if they are members of a church member's immediate family."

CD Policy

Since at least 2005 it has been PCG policy that all sermons sent out on CD are immediately destroyed after being heard in local areas. No one is to listen to the message again and the CD is destroyed with a witness present. In spite of this air-tight ruling, several sermons are available on the internet.

Social networking sites

Another PCG requirement is for all Armstrong College students to remove themselves from all social networking sites, especially Facebook and My Space. The sermon was given on April 11, 2009 at Edmond, Oklahoma PCG Headquarters by Andrew Locher. Because of the apparent 'worldliness' of these sites and because some of the students had "ex-members", "disfellowshipped" or "marked" persons in their 'friends' lists all were made to erase their accounts. The announcement also encouraged all parents to have every member child removed from all social networking sites in outlying church areas.

According to Mr. Locher, social networking sites "...[have] all the hallmarks of Satan's subtle, deceptive traits all over it".

PCG also has strong apocalyptic teachings inherited from WCG. It teaches that a Great Tribulation will soon occur in which a united European power will emerge, composed of ten nations or groups of nations, which will conquer the modern descendants of Israel (the USA, Britain and Israel) and take them into slavery. An alliance of eastern powers (including Russia and China) will gather up its forces and wage war upon the European power. Then Jesus Christ will return and liberate the Israelites and usher in a thousand years of worldwide peace, which is called the 'world tomorrow'.
wiki
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Excerpt of a Harry Shearer interview with Al Gore about his book The Assault on Reason.

Former Vice President Al Gore:[/B] In the old world before the United States of America, it was common for people to be given the reinforced impression that the monarch ruling them was ruling because of a divine right; that God had ordained the legitimacy of that monarch’s leadership and therefore apposing it was akin to opposing the will of God. That’s the divine right of kings.

The key conceptual breakthrough that came from the enlightenment and was the foundation of the United States of America, is that the legitimacy of any power exercised in governess can only come from the consent of those being governed. It is wrong however to reach the conclusions as some have that the secularity of the American design did not involve a role for God. Although there was disagreement and debate; our founding documents include this simile phrase: We believe that all men (people) are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are…

When you look very carefully at that, here’s what I get from this: the divine right of kings was replaced by the dignity of individuals and rights of individuals that come as a result of their creation by God or whatever word you want to use. If anyone says that God has ordained this government policy or that government policy; that is heresy. That is wrong, it is UN American.

And if anyone says that it is OK to strip away the rights that Americans are guaranteed in our Constitution to abuse and to torture individuals, that is also UN American.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself."
Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to make it keep pace with the advance of the age in science and experience. Instead of this, the European governments have resisted reformation until the people, seeing no other resource, undertake it themselves by force, their only weapon, and work it out through blood, desolation and long-continued anarchy."
Thomas Jefferson to Robert J. Garnett, 1824. ME 16:15

"[The European] monarchs instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself and of ordering its own affairs. Let us... avail ourselves of our reason and experience to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils." Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

Hi Friendless, glad to see you're keeping busy. (Hey, there may be some openings at the SEC.)

There were five (5) specific items listed in the OP. I list them that way so that a) they are easier to read, and b) to make it easier to identify your objections.

Your oblique criticism, as in 'the messenger, not the message,' must mean that you could find not the tiniest point with which to argue.

So I score a one hundred on a) the view that progressives have of the Constitution, b) the correct manner in which the Constitution was meant to be altered, and c) you kinda like the Tea Party folks' view of constitutionality.

So, changing your party affiliation?

LOL PC, you already won the award as the most obtuse human of female gender in America, and now you get that award for the whole planet. Your author and his cohort Robert Bork are what's called Originalists. The 'original intent theory,' which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.

Herein lies your problem PC...

Originalism leads to unacceptable results. For example, interpreting the 14th Amendment only to protect liberty recognized at the time it was ratified provides no protection to groups who were discriminated against at that time, such as women and homosexuals. With originalism, the courts are extremely limited in their power to protect against discrimination.

NOW PC...it's time...time to live up to your strong beliefs and ideology...

SO...turn in your voter registration card, you no longer have that right. Also, your parents will choose a husband for you, and will prearrange your marriage.

And you will need a new wardrobe...here's a perfect one from a society that never had a progressive movement...

article-0-0637C6B70000044D-203_468x286.jpg
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,326
Reaction score
1,705
Points
205
WOW PC, you will cite any wacko or nut to continue your assault on liberals and progressives.

Gerald Ray Flurry (born 1935) is the founder and Pastor General of the Philadelphia Church of God (PCG), a small church based in Edmond, Oklahoma. He is presenter of the television program The Key of David, is editor in chief of The Philadelphia Trumpet magazine, is founder and chancellor of Herbert W. Armstrong College in Edmond, Oklahoma, and is founder and chairman of the Armstrong International Cultural Foundation. It is taught within the church that he is That Prophet, a divinely appointed successor to Herbert W. Armstrong, akin to Elisha after Elijah. He is a supporter of teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong (founder of the Worldwide Church of God).

Disfellowshipment teaching

Flurry has been criticized by detractors for the church's teaching of disfellowshipment. The church, citing Romans 16:17, teaches PCG members to avoid associating with or fellowshipping with present and former baptized members of the Worldwide Church of God, prohibiting "any kind of fellowship with former PCG members and all "Laodiceans," even if they are members of a church member's immediate family."

CD Policy

Since at least 2005 it has been PCG policy that all sermons sent out on CD are immediately destroyed after being heard in local areas. No one is to listen to the message again and the CD is destroyed with a witness present. In spite of this air-tight ruling, several sermons are available on the internet.

Social networking sites

Another PCG requirement is for all Armstrong College students to remove themselves from all social networking sites, especially Facebook and My Space. The sermon was given on April 11, 2009 at Edmond, Oklahoma PCG Headquarters by Andrew Locher. Because of the apparent 'worldliness' of these sites and because some of the students had "ex-members", "disfellowshipped" or "marked" persons in their 'friends' lists all were made to erase their accounts. The announcement also encouraged all parents to have every member child removed from all social networking sites in outlying church areas.

According to Mr. Locher, social networking sites "...[have] all the hallmarks of Satan's subtle, deceptive traits all over it".

PCG also has strong apocalyptic teachings inherited from WCG. It teaches that a Great Tribulation will soon occur in which a united European power will emerge, composed of ten nations or groups of nations, which will conquer the modern descendants of Israel (the USA, Britain and Israel) and take them into slavery. An alliance of eastern powers (including Russia and China) will gather up its forces and wage war upon the European power. Then Jesus Christ will return and liberate the Israelites and usher in a thousand years of worldwide peace, which is called the 'world tomorrow'.
wiki
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Excerpt of a Harry Shearer interview with Al Gore about his book The Assault on Reason.

Former Vice President Al Gore:[/B] In the old world before the United States of America, it was common for people to be given the reinforced impression that the monarch ruling them was ruling because of a divine right; that God had ordained the legitimacy of that monarch’s leadership and therefore apposing it was akin to opposing the will of God. That’s the divine right of kings.

The key conceptual breakthrough that came from the enlightenment and was the foundation of the United States of America, is that the legitimacy of any power exercised in governess can only come from the consent of those being governed. It is wrong however to reach the conclusions as some have that the secularity of the American design did not involve a role for God. Although there was disagreement and debate; our founding documents include this simile phrase: We believe that all men (people) are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are…

When you look very carefully at that, here’s what I get from this: the divine right of kings was replaced by the dignity of individuals and rights of individuals that come as a result of their creation by God or whatever word you want to use. If anyone says that God has ordained this government policy or that government policy; that is heresy. That is wrong, it is UN American.

And if anyone says that it is OK to strip away the rights that Americans are guaranteed in our Constitution to abuse and to torture individuals, that is also UN American.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself."
Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to make it keep pace with the advance of the age in science and experience. Instead of this, the European governments have resisted reformation until the people, seeing no other resource, undertake it themselves by force, their only weapon, and work it out through blood, desolation and long-continued anarchy."
Thomas Jefferson to Robert J. Garnett, 1824. ME 16:15

"[The European] monarchs instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself and of ordering its own affairs. Let us... avail ourselves of our reason and experience to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils." Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

Hi Friendless, glad to see you're keeping busy. (Hey, there may be some openings at the SEC.)

There were five (5) specific items listed in the OP. I list them that way so that a) they are easier to read, and b) to make it easier to identify your objections.

Your oblique criticism, as in 'the messenger, not the message,' must mean that you could find not the tiniest point with which to argue.

So I score a one hundred on a) the view that progressives have of the Constitution, b) the correct manner in which the Constitution was meant to be altered, and c) you kinda like the Tea Party folks' view of constitutionality.

So, changing your party affiliation?

LOL PC, you already won the award as the most obtuse human of female gender in America, and now you get that award for the whole planet. Your author and his cohort Robert Bork are what's called Originalists. The 'original intent theory,' which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.

Herein lies your problem PC...

Originalism leads to unacceptable results. For example, interpreting the 14th Amendment only to protect liberty recognized at the time it was ratified provides no protection to groups who were discriminated against at that time, such as women and homosexuals. With originalism, the courts are extremely limited in their power to protect against discrimination.

NOW PC...it's time...time to live up to your strong beliefs and ideology...

SO...turn in your voter registration card, you no longer have that right. Also, your parents will choose a husband for you, and will prearrange your marriage.

And you will need a new wardrobe...here's a perfect one from a society that never had a progressive movement...

article-0-0637C6B70000044D-203_468x286.jpg

That would be incorrect, no where in the Constitution does it say that the government has to treat women and men differently. That was simply a cultural phenomenon that died out as we moved forward as a society, and the Constitution now guarantees the right of women to vote.
 

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
16,829
Reaction score
2,492
Points
245
Hi Friendless, glad to see you're keeping busy. (Hey, there may be some openings at the SEC.)

There were five (5) specific items listed in the OP. I list them that way so that a) they are easier to read, and b) to make it easier to identify your objections.

Your oblique criticism, as in 'the messenger, not the message,' must mean that you could find not the tiniest point with which to argue.

So I score a one hundred on a) the view that progressives have of the Constitution, b) the correct manner in which the Constitution was meant to be altered, and c) you kinda like the Tea Party folks' view of constitutionality.

So, changing your party affiliation?

LOL PC, you already won the award as the most obtuse human of female gender in America, and now you get that award for the whole planet. Your author and his cohort Robert Bork are what's called Originalists. The 'original intent theory,' which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.

Herein lies your problem PC...

Originalism leads to unacceptable results. For example, interpreting the 14th Amendment only to protect liberty recognized at the time it was ratified provides no protection to groups who were discriminated against at that time, such as women and homosexuals. With originalism, the courts are extremely limited in their power to protect against discrimination.

NOW PC...it's time...time to live up to your strong beliefs and ideology...

SO...turn in your voter registration card, you no longer have that right. Also, your parents will choose a husband for you, and will prearrange your marriage.

And you will need a new wardrobe...here's a perfect one from a society that never had a progressive movement...

article-0-0637C6B70000044D-203_468x286.jpg

That would be incorrect, no where in the Constitution does it say that the government has to treat women and men differently. That was simply a cultural phenomenon that died out as we moved forward as a society, and the Constitution now guarantees the right of women to vote.

It didn't 'die out' Kevin. Progressive women and men fought and some even died to secure those rights. I expected more intelligence from you.

Blacks had the right to vote before women.
 

rikules

fighting thugs and cons
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
310
Points
48
Most liberals have accepted some ‘modern’ or populist view of the correct direction of society, without addressing either the provenance, or the prognosis if this path is followed.

1. Where do our laws begin? The answer is not open to conjecture: it is written in the Constitution itself.

“THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
“THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Article VI.

2. Cal Thomas wrote in the March 8, 2000, Washington Times, “In the final Democratic debate before the Super Tuesday election, Vice President Al Gore responded to a question about the type of Supreme Court justices he as president would select: ‘I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly EVOLVING EXPERIENCE of the American people.’ …
“Mr. Gore’s view of the Constitution, shared by most political liberals, IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PHILOSOPHIES OF OUR TIME. It establishes a class of philosopher-kings who determine the rights of the people and shreds the CONSTITUTION AS A DOCUMENT THAT CONFORMS PEOPLE TO UNCHANGING PRINCIPLES that promote their own and the general welfare.

3. Liberal scholars today don’t believe the Constitution was “ROOTED IN OBJECTIVE AND UNCHANGING TRUTH”—that is, they don’t believe our founders established the rule of law. But that’s just what the founders did. And now most lawyers and judges reject their foundational work. “A well-known Harvard law professor,” Robert Bork wrote, “turned to me with some exasperation and said, ‘Your notion that the Constitution is in some sense law must rest upon an obscure philosophic principle with which I am unfamiliar.’”

4. Law schools routinely teach about being “legal realists.” Like former Vice President Al Gore, they want an “evolving Constitution.” But this reasoning gives the judges despotic powers. It also takes us away from the foundational law established by our forefathers. RADICAL LIBERAL CULTURE OFTEN HAS CONTEMPT OF HISTORY AND OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. Its followers foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law.
The War Against the U.S. Constitution | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

5. Speaking directly to this point, the Tea Party folks have created a ‘Contract For America,’ the first item of which is the following, agreed to by over 82%:
"(1) Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03 percent). Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract From America' - ABC News


since the constitution doesn't give us many rights at all I would be very careful of enforing any policy that denies people rights that are NOT listed in the constitution.

as fond of our founding fathers as I am I still must insist that
1. since they are lond dead
and
2. since they got so many things wrong (womans suffrage, slavery, the right to vote for nonlandowners)
and
3. since we have evolved/changed/matured/grown so much since their day

it is justifiable for those of us living today to decide for ourselves what kind of country we want to live in and what our rights and freedoms should be.


i prefer to NOT be forced to abide by rules and laws that are illogical, irrational and outdated

the people of EVERY age should have the right and freedom to decide for themselves
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
106,850
Reaction score
41,529
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
WOW PC, you will cite any wacko or nut to continue your assault on liberals and progressives.

Gerald Ray Flurry (born 1935) is the founder and Pastor General of the Philadelphia Church of God (PCG), a small church based in Edmond, Oklahoma. He is presenter of the television program The Key of David, is editor in chief of The Philadelphia Trumpet magazine, is founder and chancellor of Herbert W. Armstrong College in Edmond, Oklahoma, and is founder and chairman of the Armstrong International Cultural Foundation. It is taught within the church that he is That Prophet, a divinely appointed successor to Herbert W. Armstrong, akin to Elisha after Elijah. He is a supporter of teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong (founder of the Worldwide Church of God).

Disfellowshipment teaching

Flurry has been criticized by detractors for the church's teaching of disfellowshipment. The church, citing Romans 16:17, teaches PCG members to avoid associating with or fellowshipping with present and former baptized members of the Worldwide Church of God, prohibiting "any kind of fellowship with former PCG members and all "Laodiceans," even if they are members of a church member's immediate family."

CD Policy

Since at least 2005 it has been PCG policy that all sermons sent out on CD are immediately destroyed after being heard in local areas. No one is to listen to the message again and the CD is destroyed with a witness present. In spite of this air-tight ruling, several sermons are available on the internet.

Social networking sites

Another PCG requirement is for all Armstrong College students to remove themselves from all social networking sites, especially Facebook and My Space. The sermon was given on April 11, 2009 at Edmond, Oklahoma PCG Headquarters by Andrew Locher. Because of the apparent 'worldliness' of these sites and because some of the students had "ex-members", "disfellowshipped" or "marked" persons in their 'friends' lists all were made to erase their accounts. The announcement also encouraged all parents to have every member child removed from all social networking sites in outlying church areas.

According to Mr. Locher, social networking sites "...[have] all the hallmarks of Satan's subtle, deceptive traits all over it".

PCG also has strong apocalyptic teachings inherited from WCG. It teaches that a Great Tribulation will soon occur in which a united European power will emerge, composed of ten nations or groups of nations, which will conquer the modern descendants of Israel (the USA, Britain and Israel) and take them into slavery. An alliance of eastern powers (including Russia and China) will gather up its forces and wage war upon the European power. Then Jesus Christ will return and liberate the Israelites and usher in a thousand years of worldwide peace, which is called the 'world tomorrow'.
wiki
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Excerpt of a Harry Shearer interview with Al Gore about his book The Assault on Reason.

Former Vice President Al Gore:[/B] In the old world before the United States of America, it was common for people to be given the reinforced impression that the monarch ruling them was ruling because of a divine right; that God had ordained the legitimacy of that monarch’s leadership and therefore apposing it was akin to opposing the will of God. That’s the divine right of kings.

The key conceptual breakthrough that came from the enlightenment and was the foundation of the United States of America, is that the legitimacy of any power exercised in governess can only come from the consent of those being governed. It is wrong however to reach the conclusions as some have that the secularity of the American design did not involve a role for God. Although there was disagreement and debate; our founding documents include this simile phrase: We believe that all men (people) are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are…

When you look very carefully at that, here’s what I get from this: the divine right of kings was replaced by the dignity of individuals and rights of individuals that come as a result of their creation by God or whatever word you want to use. If anyone says that God has ordained this government policy or that government policy; that is heresy. That is wrong, it is UN American.

And if anyone says that it is OK to strip away the rights that Americans are guaranteed in our Constitution to abuse and to torture individuals, that is also UN American.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself."
Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to make it keep pace with the advance of the age in science and experience. Instead of this, the European governments have resisted reformation until the people, seeing no other resource, undertake it themselves by force, their only weapon, and work it out through blood, desolation and long-continued anarchy."
Thomas Jefferson to Robert J. Garnett, 1824. ME 16:15

"[The European] monarchs instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself and of ordering its own affairs. Let us... avail ourselves of our reason and experience to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils." Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

Hi Friendless, glad to see you're keeping busy. (Hey, there may be some openings at the SEC.)

There were five (5) specific items listed in the OP. I list them that way so that a) they are easier to read, and b) to make it easier to identify your objections.

Your oblique criticism, as in 'the messenger, not the message,' must mean that you could find not the tiniest point with which to argue.

So I score a one hundred on a) the view that progressives have of the Constitution, b) the correct manner in which the Constitution was meant to be altered, and c) you kinda like the Tea Party folks' view of constitutionality.

So, changing your party affiliation?

LOL PC, you already won the award as the most obtuse human of female gender in America, and now you get that award for the whole planet. Your author and his cohort Robert Bork are what's called Originalists. The 'original intent theory,' which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.

Herein lies your problem PC...

Originalism leads to unacceptable results. For example, interpreting the 14th Amendment only to protect liberty recognized at the time it was ratified provides no protection to groups who were discriminated against at that time, such as women and homosexuals. With originalism, the courts are extremely limited in their power to protect against discrimination.

NOW PC...it's time...time to live up to your strong beliefs and ideology...

SO...turn in your voter registration card, you no longer have that right. Also, your parents will choose a husband for you, and will prearrange your marriage.

And you will need a new wardrobe...here's a perfect one from a society that never had a progressive movement...

article-0-0637C6B70000044D-203_468x286.jpg

You gave me awards?? You like me, you really like me...did Sally use that already?
But wait- any organization you belong to must meet in a thimble.


Hey- are you trying to trick me into helping to fill your empty life, BoringFriendlessGuy??

OK- but just this little bit: by 14th amendment, are you referring to the one those rascally Republicans rammed through using the amendment process as outlined in the Constitution?

And since they used said process to support the free expression of the rights of our black citizens, are you suggesting that they could not make additional clauses for whomsoever???

The unspoken and abjectly erroneous view of you on the left is that Americans are cruel racists, with only you guys to protect them...

and if so, how do you explain the conditions in chronically Democrat controlled cities like Detroit, New Orleans, etc?


Oh no- did I just give you entee again? Dang.
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,326
Reaction score
1,705
Points
205
LOL PC, you already won the award as the most obtuse human of female gender in America, and now you get that award for the whole planet. Your author and his cohort Robert Bork are what's called Originalists. The 'original intent theory,' which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.

Herein lies your problem PC...

Originalism leads to unacceptable results. For example, interpreting the 14th Amendment only to protect liberty recognized at the time it was ratified provides no protection to groups who were discriminated against at that time, such as women and homosexuals. With originalism, the courts are extremely limited in their power to protect against discrimination.

NOW PC...it's time...time to live up to your strong beliefs and ideology...

SO...turn in your voter registration card, you no longer have that right. Also, your parents will choose a husband for you, and will prearrange your marriage.

And you will need a new wardrobe...here's a perfect one from a society that never had a progressive movement...

article-0-0637C6B70000044D-203_468x286.jpg

That would be incorrect, no where in the Constitution does it say that the government has to treat women and men differently. That was simply a cultural phenomenon that died out as we moved forward as a society, and the Constitution now guarantees the right of women to vote.

It didn't 'die out' Kevin. Progressive women and men fought and some even died to secure those rights. I expected more intelligence from you.

Blacks had the right to vote before women.

Yes, women fought for their rights, thus forcing the old customs and biases to die out. However, it had nothing to do with the Constitution, other than amending it to guarantee their right to vote.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
106,850
Reaction score
41,529
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Most liberals have accepted some ‘modern’ or populist view of the correct direction of society, without addressing either the provenance, or the prognosis if this path is followed.

1. Where do our laws begin? The answer is not open to conjecture: it is written in the Constitution itself.

“THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
“THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Article VI.

2. Cal Thomas wrote in the March 8, 2000, Washington Times, “In the final Democratic debate before the Super Tuesday election, Vice President Al Gore responded to a question about the type of Supreme Court justices he as president would select: ‘I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly EVOLVING EXPERIENCE of the American people.’ …
“Mr. Gore’s view of the Constitution, shared by most political liberals, IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PHILOSOPHIES OF OUR TIME. It establishes a class of philosopher-kings who determine the rights of the people and shreds the CONSTITUTION AS A DOCUMENT THAT CONFORMS PEOPLE TO UNCHANGING PRINCIPLES that promote their own and the general welfare.

3. Liberal scholars today don’t believe the Constitution was “ROOTED IN OBJECTIVE AND UNCHANGING TRUTH”—that is, they don’t believe our founders established the rule of law. But that’s just what the founders did. And now most lawyers and judges reject their foundational work. “A well-known Harvard law professor,” Robert Bork wrote, “turned to me with some exasperation and said, ‘Your notion that the Constitution is in some sense law must rest upon an obscure philosophic principle with which I am unfamiliar.’”

4. Law schools routinely teach about being “legal realists.” Like former Vice President Al Gore, they want an “evolving Constitution.” But this reasoning gives the judges despotic powers. It also takes us away from the foundational law established by our forefathers. RADICAL LIBERAL CULTURE OFTEN HAS CONTEMPT OF HISTORY AND OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. Its followers foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law.
The War Against the U.S. Constitution | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

5. Speaking directly to this point, the Tea Party folks have created a ‘Contract For America,’ the first item of which is the following, agreed to by over 82%:
"(1) Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03 percent). Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract From America' - ABC News


since the constitution doesn't give us many rights at all I would be very careful of enforing any policy that denies people rights that are NOT listed in the constitution.

as fond of our founding fathers as I am I still must insist that
1. since they are lond dead
and
2. since they got so many things wrong (womans suffrage, slavery, the right to vote for nonlandowners)
and
3. since we have evolved/changed/matured/grown so much since their day

it is justifiable for those of us living today to decide for ourselves what kind of country we want to live in and what our rights and freedoms should be.


i prefer to NOT be forced to abide by rules and laws that are illogical, irrational and outdated

the people of EVERY age should have the right and freedom to decide for themselves

You must be the product of a public school 'education.'

"since they are lond dead..." Ah, that proves it.


The primary difference between out foundational law and that promulgated by progressives, is that they deny our 'inalienable rights' and give us only what they legislate.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

In the Progressives’ view, the law, by judicial action, determines what rights we have, and, therefore, natural rights are taken away.
Woodrow Wilson essay “Socialism and Democracy” ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will.’
The collective is not limited by individual rights.


"...those of us living today to decide for ourselves ..."
Herein lies the heart of the problem. Good folks, folks like you, have not been educated to understand what it is they are signing onto. Your post shows this.

I contend that if you understood the differences between what you claim to agree with, and what the founding documents actually imply, you would change your view in a hot New York second.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
106,850
Reaction score
41,529
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top